The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

?php
>

Friday, August 21, 2015

U.S. policymakers who hope
that the nuclear deal will help nudge the Islamic revolutionary state
into becoming a normal member of the international community seem to
forget the past. Policymakers, journalists, and intelligence analysts
had all predicted that the era of former Iranian President Mohammad
Khatami was a sure sign of the evolution of the revolution. Khatami was
replaced by the even more hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

It seems clear that despite the American political
establishment's failure to recognize that a state of war already exists
between Iran and the United States, the Islamic Republic has no doubt
with whom it is at war.

Iran has been at war with the "Great Satan" (USA) since the
establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979. Its opening move was the
regime's seizure of the American Embassy and its taking U.S. diplomats
hostage for 444 days in 1979-1980. Technically, the move was an
internationally recognized casus belli, legitimate cause for war.

In addition, the Iranian regime's proxy terrorist group, Hezbollah,
engineered the murder of 241 U.S. soldiers, sailors, and marines in
Lebanon on October 23, 1983. Iran also sponsored the truck bombing that
murdered 19 US Air Force personnel at the Khobar Towers housing complex
in Saudi Arabia on June 25, 1996,[1] in an attack allegedly executed by a Bahrain-based cell of Hezbollah, with the cooperation of a Saudi-trained Hezbollah cell.[2]

Iran was behind the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.[3]
The Islamic Republic's intelligence services facilitated travel across
Iran by several of the hijackers in the weeks leading up to 9/11.[4]

Additionally, after the 9/11 attacks, Iran granted refuge,
reconstitution, and a base of operations for several high-level al-Qaeda
terrorists.[5]

After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in April 2003, when Tehran
activated its underground intelligence network in Iraq to target
American troops, Iran was responsible either directly or indirectly for
about a third of U.S. casualties in Iraq.[6]

The Islamic Republic also has given military assistance to the Afghan Taliban to kill U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan.[7]

IRGC gunboats also have threatened commercial shipping,
as well as U.S. and allied military assets in Persian Gulf waters,
including the Strait of Hormuz. In late April 2015, Iran seized the
Marshall Islands-flagged vessel Maersk Tigris, and detained the ship and
crew for weeks. In July, several IRGC gunboats surrounded the
U.S.-flagged Maersk Kensington.

The most recent Iranian provocation reportedly occurred this month, on August 4, when an Iranian Navy Vosper Class frigate pointed a deck-mounted machine gun at an American helicopter that had just landed on an allied warship.

Tehran's assistance to the Shia Houthi tribesmen in Yemen has enabled
Iran to expand its territorial control of the country. If the Houthi
become the dominant force in Yemen, Iran would be in a position to
threaten shipping in the Bab el-Mandab Strait, a maritime chokepoint
between the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. A blockade there, as well as
at the Strait of Hormuz on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula,
would be a clear violation of freedom of navigation on the high seas, a
vital international interest acknowledged by the U.S.

Iran has also taken its offensive against the United States to the Western hemisphere.
Iran has forged intelligence relationships with several Latin American
countries that do not have friendly diplomatic relationships with the
U.S., such as Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Bolivia.

Hezbollah, Iran's proxy terrorist group, has also infiltrated parts
of the United States, with sleeper cells in Dearborn, Michigan;
Charlotte, North Carolina; and several other locales.[8]

On a strategic political plane, Iran probably believes that it has
been able to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its ally, the "Little
Satan," Israel, over the Obama Administration's effort to forge a
negotiated nuclear treaty with the Iran.[9]

This strategy has also been applied to America's political and
military alliances with the conservative Sunni Arab governments on the
Arabian Peninsula.[10]

The IRGC also continues to manage several weapons-development
projects, including intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) systems
capable of launching nuclear-armed re-entry vehicles at the continental
United States.[11]

It seems clear that despite the American political establishment's
failure to recognize that a state of war already exists between Iran and
the United States, the Islamic Republic has no doubt with whom it is at
war.

The diminution of American influence in the region, the destruction
of the "Zionist Entity" (Israel), and challenging the legitimacy of
Sunni Arab Gulf monarchies appear to be the main motive forces driving
Iran's foreign policy.

The regime's hardliners use their hostility to the "Great Satan"
(America) to demonstrate their loyalty to the Islamic Revolution.

U.S. policymakers who hope that the nuclear deal will help nudge the
Islamic revolutionary state into becoming a normal member of the
international community seem to forget the past. Policymakers,
journalists, and intelligence analysts had all predicted that the era of
former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami was a sure sign of the
evolution of the revolution. Khatami was replaced by the even more
hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the
U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he was a
Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Israel.

[1]
Congressional Testimony in 2002 by FBI former Director Louie Freeh and
NPR radio interview and U.S Federal Court Testimony. Freeh accuses
Iran's Ministry of Intelligence of supervising truck bomb attack on
Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia citing several Saudi citizens and
a Lebanese Hezbollah operative.[2] "The Secret War with Iran" by Ronen Bergman. Free Press, N.Y. 2007. p.195.[3]
US District Court Rules Iran Behind 9/11 Attacks." District Court Judge
George B. Daniels, in a decision handed down on 15 December 2011, ruled
in Havlish et al v. bin-Laden et al that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.[4]
See comments of former DIA Director LTG Michael Flynn and seized Bin
Laden documents that detail the relationship, as well as Ronen Bergman's
chapter on links between Al-Qaeda and Iran.[5] 9/11 Commission Report.[6]
U. S. Ambassador James Jeffrey believes that at least a quarter of U.S.
combat deaths in Iraq are attributable to Iran. 26 August 2010.
Reuters. Other estimates reach the one-third figure.[7] "Dem Congressman on Iran Sanctions Relief: 'They'll Have a Few Billion Left over to Kill Americans'"
by Daniel Greenfield, FrontPageMagazine.com, July 15, 2015. The article
quotes former member of the Pentagon's Joint Improvised Explosive
Device defeat Organization that 500 U.S. combat deaths in Iraq and
Afghanistan attributed to Iran is probably on the low side.[8]"The Secret War with Iran" by Ronen Bergman, p.205. "Al-Mabarrat – A Hezbollah Charitable Front in Dearborn, MI?" by Steven Emerson 22 July 2006.[9] Supreme Leader Khamenei has just published the book "Palestine,"
in which he writes that one objective of Iranian statecraft is to
encourage "Israel Fatigue" in America re its alliance with the "Zionist
Entity,"[10]
Several articles on Arab Gulf allies of U.S. having qualms about
possible U.S. shift toward an era of cooperation with Iran. For example:
"Like Israel, U.S. Arab Allies Fear Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal" by Yaroslav Trofimov, Wall Street Journal, 4 March 2015; "Why Arab Countries Fear the Iran Deal" by Geneive Abdo, The National Interest, 7 April 2015.[11] Several late July/early August 2015 Congressional hearings, Senate Armed Services Committee, on Iran's ICBM programs.

Lawrence A. Franklinwas the Iran Desk Officer for
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the
U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he was a
Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Israel.Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6354/iran-declared-war Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Will enough Democrats put country over party and defy Obama?

As the congressional vote on President Barack Obama’s
disastrous nuclear deal with Iran draws closer, the Iranian regime
appears to be doing everything it can to show that it has the upper hand
as a result of the deal it negotiated with the United States and its
five partners. It is either dishonestly twisting certain terms of the
deal to justify its misbehavior or simply defying the terms outright.
President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are not pushing back.
Instead, they are pushing hard to avoid a veto-proof congressional vote
of disapproval.

For example, Iran is planning to sign a
contract for four advanced Russian surface-to-air S-300 missiles as
early as next week, following a visit to Moscow by Iranian Quds Force
commander Qassem Soleimani in violation of an international travel ban.

There have been whimpers of objection from the Obama administration,
but no forceful statement that such activities by the Iranian regime
will jeopardize the agreement from the get-go.

Iranian
leaders have also declared that their arms shipments to allies in the
region, such as their terrorist proxy Hezbollah, will continue despite
the United Nations Security Council arms embargo still in effect for the
next five years.

The Obama administration’s response is
staggering. According to Kerry, “The arms embargo is not tied to
snapback. It is tied to a separate set of obligations. So they are not
in material breach of the nuclear agreement for violating the arms piece
of it.”

That is all the encouragement the Iranian regime
needed to up the ante. According to Debkafile, “Al Qods commander Gen.
Qassem Soleimani, acting on the orders of Iran’s supreme leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, this week set up a new Iranian command to fight
Israel.” This newly named “Eastern Command” is reportedly set “to start
handing out weapons, including missiles, to any Palestinian West Bank
group willing to receive them.” This is the same Soleimani with American
blood on his hands who recently visited Moscow in violation of the
current international travel ban, but who will eventually have sanctions
and freezes against him lifted as part of the nuclear deal.

Meanwhile, to make matters even worse, the Associated Press is reporting
that “Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a
site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating
under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out
such work.” In other words, the UN international inspection team that
President Obama has pointed to as the chief verification safeguard will
now give way at least in part to Iranian inspectors investigating their
own alleged nuclear weaponization development work at a military site
declared off limits by Iran to international inspectors. The White House
remained “confident” in the viability of the inspection regime despite
the confidence game the Iranian regime played with the UN to permit Iran
to self-inspect.

Nevertheless, Democrats in the Senate and
House of Representatives are lining up to support President Obama’s
disastrous nuclear deal with Iran. They are willfully ignoring clear
evidence that Iran, post-deal, is continuing its pattern of cheating and
violating international sanctions and embargoes still in place. Like
lemmings jumping over the cliff, these Democrats are willing to ease the
Iranian regime’s path towards becoming a threshold nuclear armed state
in a little over a decade, out of blind partisan loyalty to Obama.

To date, the Obama administration has the declared support of 23
Democratic and nominally “independent” senators it will need to sustain
an expected veto by President Obama of any resolution passed by Congress
to disapprove the deal. This tally is according to The Hill’s Senate
whip list compiled as of August 18th. The administration needs at least
34 senators on Obama’s side to sustain a veto. Six Democratic senators
are said to be leaning towards a favorable vote, including Senator
Richard Blumenthal (Conn.). Fifteen Senate Democrats are still
undecided.

So far, only two Democratic senators have shown the
courage to serve the public interest, rather than narrow partisan
interests. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) became the second Democratic
senator to announce his willingness to vote against the president from
his own party in opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran. Senator Chuck
Schumer had announced his opposition on August 6th.

On the
House side, according to The Hill’s Whip List as of August 19th, 55
Democratic representatives have indicated that they are planning to vote
in support of the deal. Fourteen more Democrats are leaning in favor.
Twelve have declared their opposition to the deal so far. Three are
leaning against and 57 are listed as undecided. Obama will prevail on a
vote to sustain his expected veto of a disapproval resolution that
passes both houses of Congress if he loses no more than 43 House
Democrats (assuming the Republicans in the House all vote to override
the veto).

Speaking at Seton Hall University’s School of Diplomacy and International Relations on August 18th
when he announced his opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran, Senator
Menendez provided a very detailed explanation of his decision. He
characterized the fundamental flaw in the deal this way: “The agreement
that has been reached failed to achieve the one thing it set out to
achieve – it failed to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state
at a time of its choosing. In fact, it authorizes and supports the very
road map Iran will need to arrive at its target.”

Senator
Menendez objected to the exchange of permanent sanctions relief for Iran
in return for “only temporary – temporary – limitations on its nuclear
program – not a rolling-back, not dismantlement, but temporary
limitations.” The deal, the senator added, “is based on ‘hope.’ Hope is
part of human nature, but unfortunately it is not a national security
strategy."

Senator Menendez also took a swipe at President
Obama’s attempt to tie opponents of his deal to supporters of the 2003
war in Iraq. “Unlike President Obama's characterization of those who
have raised serious questions about the agreement, or who have opposed
it,” the senator said, “I did not vote for the war in Iraq, I opposed
it, unlike the Vice President and the Secretary of State, who both
supported it.”

The New Jersey senator reminded his audience that the purpose of
the negotiations from the U.S. perspective had been “to dismantle all --
or significant parts -- of Iran's illicit nuclear infrastructure to
ensure that it would not have nuclear weapons capability at any time.
Not shrink its infrastructure. Not limit it. But fully dismantle Iran’s
nuclear weapons capability.”

Senator Menendez
cataloged examples of early assurances from the Obama administration of
red lines that were later wiped away. For example, Secretary of State
John Kerry had declared in the early days of engaging with Iran that
Arak, Iran's plutonium reactor, would be dismantled. That is not the
case under the deal Obama and Kerry signed off on. The underground
Fordow enrichment facility was to be closed. That too was not part of
the final deal. The Iranians, Senator Menendez said, were supposed “to
come absolutely clean about their weaponization activities at Parchin
[their military facility] and agree to promise anytime anywhere
inspections.” That too, in Senator Menendez’s words, “fell by the
wayside.” Now we have learned that the Iranians will be able to
self-inspect. In addition, not even one existing centrifuge
will be destroyed. Some are just being disconnected. Thousands will
remain in operation. Research and development on centrifuges will be
permitted to continue even during the first ten years of the deal.

“While I have many specific concerns about this agreement, my
overarching concern is that it requires no dismantling of Iran’s nuclear
infrastructure and only mothballs that infrastructure for 10 years,”
Senator Menendez explained. “We lift sanctions, and -- at year eight --
Iran can actually start manufacturing and testing advanced IR-6 and IR-8
centrifuges that enrich up to 15 times the speed of its current
models. At year 15, Iran can start enriching uranium beyond 3.67
percent – the level at which we become concerned about fissile material
for a bomb. At year 15, Iran will have NO limits on its uranium
stockpile.”

Under the deal, Iran will get significant
sanctions relief within the first year, while its obligations stretch
out for a decade or more. And there is a major concession in the deal
that has gotten very little attention to date. Iran’s negotiators
out-maneuvered Secretary of State Kerry’s team into conceding away the
right to re-impose or extend U.S. sanctions beyond their expiration
date. Senator Menendez noted that "we will have to refrain from
reintroducing or reimposing the Iran Sanctions Act I authored – which
expires next year -- that acted significantly to bring Iran to the table
in the first place."

Iran has agreed only to provisionally
apply the Additional Protocol to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons that is supposed to ensure continuing access to suspect
sites in a country, and only formally adopt it when Congress has
abolished all sanctions.

Senator Menendez, like Senator
Schumer, dismisses the either-or choice between Obama’s deal and war,
which Obama and his supporters are offering as a red herring. “If there
is a fear of war in the region,” said Senator Menendez, “it is fueled by
Iran and its proxies and exacerbated by an agreement that allows Iran
to possess an industrial-sized nuclear program, and enough money in
sanctions relief to continue to fund its hegemonic intentions throughout
the region."

The senator suggested offering Iran some limited
inducements to return to the negotiating table, and outlined some
parameters that the Obama administration should follow in seeking better
terms. These include “the immediate ratification by Iran of the
Additional Protocol to ensure that we have a permanent international
arrangement with Iran for access to suspect sites,” closing the Fordow
enrichment facility, resolving the ‘possible military dimensions’ of
Iran’s program” before there can be any permanent sanctions relief,
banning centrifuge R&D for the duration of the agreement, and
extending to at least 20 years the duration of the agreement.

Senator Menendez also wants to extend the authorization of the Iran
Sanctions Act beyond its expiration in 2016 “to ensure that we have an
effective snapback option.” And he wants a clear declaration of U.S.
policy by the President and Congress that “we will use all means
necessary to prevent Iran from producing enough enriched uranium for a
nuclear bomb, as well as building or buying one, both during and after
any agreement.”

Unfortunately, the procedure for congressional
involvement with the nuclear deal has turned the Constitution’s treaty
ratification process on its head. Instead of requiring a two-thirds vote
of the Senate to ratify the nuclear deal if had been handled as a
treaty, President Obama will get his way unless both houses of Congress
override his veto of a disapproval resolution by a two-thirds vote.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that
opponents of the nuclear deal will likely lose in a vote to override an
Obama veto. Why the Republican majority in the Senate ever agreed to
such a legislative trap is beyond comprehension.

Regardless of
the eventual outcome, at the very least the leaders of the House and
Senate must insist that a resolution of disapproval be voted upon on the
merits. Each representative and senator should be required to go on the
record in a roll-call vote, indicating his or her vote of yea or nay.
This means that Democrats in the Senate should not be permitted to hide
behind a filibuster to avoid an up-or-down vote. If the 60 votes needed
to overcome a filibuster and allow a majority of the Senate to pass or
reject a disapproval resolution is not attainable, Senate Majority
Leader McConnell must stand up and take a page out of former Democratic
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s playbook. Senator McConnell should
deploy the so-called "nuclear option.” This would mean eliminating the
filibuster that could otherwise be used by Democrats to block a vote on
what is likely to be a once-in-a-lifetime agreement with life and death
consequences for national security.

If the Democratic
senators supporting President Obama’s deal believe that it is the only
realistic alternative to war, then they should have the backbone to put
their names on the record in support of the deal. If they try to duck
their legislative responsibility to their constituents and the nation,
then Senator McConnell must act promptly to take away their filibuster
fig leaf. If Senator McConnell does not move aggressively in this
direction as and when necessary, he will show as much cravenness as the
Democrats exploiting the filibuster.

Head of U.N.'s Western Asia economic agency
Rima Khalaf "abused her position to promote an anti-Israel agenda in
flagrant violation of U.N. principles," Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor
says in a letter to Secretary-General Ban • Khalaf denies allegations.

Rima Khalaf, Executive
Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia

|

Photo credit: Wikimedia

Israel's ambassador to the U.N. is urging its
internal watchdog to investigate the head of a U.N. agency for
misconduct, accusing her of "modern-day anti-Semitism." Last year, he
tried unsuccessfully to get Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to suspend
Rima Khalaf.

Ambassador Ron Prosor met Carmen Lapointe, the
head of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, late last month and
called for a disciplinary hearing against Khalaf, a Jordanian who heads
the Beirut-based U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia,
which promotes economic and social development in 17 Arab countries.

A letter from the ambassador to Lapointe
obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press said, "Ms. Khalaf has abused
her position in order to promote an anti-Israel agenda, in a flagrant
violation of U.N. obligations and principles."

Khalaf told The Associated Press in Beirut on
Wednesday that she stands by her statements highlighting "Israel's
documented violations of international law against the Palestinian
people" and rejecting "the concept of religious or ethnic purity of
states."

"I am surprised that rejecting discrimination,
and reiterating the principles of equality and justice in the U.N.
Charter, can still be contested by anyone," Khalaf said.

Prosor gave a series of examples, including
her support for the June 29 "illegal and provocative attempt" to break
Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, a July 7 reference which he
said equated "terrorism with a fight for 'justice,'" and what he called
"a hate-fueled report" on Arab integration in March 2014 "that once
again promotes anti-Israel incitement by blaming Israel for shortcomings
in the Arab world."

"Ms. Khalaf's outrageous criticism against the
State of Israel and the discrediting of its government undermine the
integrity of the United Nations and amount to serious misconduct, by
U.N. standards," Prosor said in the July 27 letter. "I call on you to
initiate an urgent investigation into this matter."

Lapointe said late Wednesday, when asked
whether her office would investigate, that "OIOS is not allowed by our
mandate to discuss whether or not it has opened a case, or the status of
a case that may have been opened."

Last year, Israel urged the secretary-general to suspend Khalaf for anti-Israeli statements but he refused.

In a speech in late February 2014, Khalaf
referred to "Israel's adamancy that it is a Jewish State, which violates
the rights of both the Muslim and Christian indigenous populations and
revives the concept of state ethnic and religious purity, which caused
egregious human suffering during the 20th century."

Prosor strongly objected to her reference to
Israel practicing religious and ethnic purity like the Nazis in World
War II, and to "the appalling claim" in the March 2014 report that
Hitler sought to facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine
when he was responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews.

Khalaf said she did not claim that Hitler sought to create a safe haven for the Jewish people in the Middle East.

"Nothing is comparable to the atrocities of
the Nazis, especially the Holocaust," Khalaf said. "Yet this should
serve as a reminder for the world of the disastrous consequences of
discriminating among people based on their religion or ethnic origin."

Israel's U.N. Mission said Prosor told Lapointe during
their meeting that "Israel is already fighting against hate and
incitement in enough arenas every day" and "will not remain silent"
about Khalaf's remarks.

Jews for Destroying the Jewish State.

In 2008, Elliot Dorff joined Rabbis for Obama in
their claim that Senator Obama would be a “leader in the fight against
serious threats to Israel.”

Dorff, a Beverly Hills-based clergyman, showed a deep grasp of geopolitical issues when he claimed that
because of President Bush, “now the Taliban inhabit Iraq, where they
never used to be.” This would have come as news to both the Taliban and
Iraq. But Rabbis for Obama kept Dorff’s testimonial up because no one
there seemed to know any better or know anything except how awful Israel
is.

Like many of the Rabbis for Obama, Dorff was a left-wing
radical who could be counted on to sign any letter attacking Israel. In
2010, he joined the unofficially nicknamed ‘Rabbis for Hamas’ by signing
a letter demanding that Israel end the blockade of the genocidal
Islamic terrorist group.

Elliot Dorff had also signed an
earlier letter praising the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gaza, which
led the area to be taken over by Hamas. But this was only to be expected
from a member of J Street, serving on the anti-Israel group’s Rabbinic Cabinet Executive Council.

Now Elliot Dorff, who has never tired of being destructive and wrong,
has signed on to yet another bad letter. After Rabbis for Obama and
‘Rabbis for Hamas’, he has signed on to ‘Rabbis for Iran’.

The
letter in support of a deal that Obama admitted will give Iran zero
breakout time to a nuclear bomb, is signed by many of the same Dorffs
who had signed on to Rabbis for Obama and Rabbis for Hamas.

John Friedman of the Rabbinic Cabinet of the Jewish Alliance for Justice
and Peace, another left-wing anti-Israel group, signed all three
letters. The “Alliance”, also known as Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, called on
Israel to recognize Hamas, condemned Israel for taking out the co-founder of Hamas and described Muslim terrorist massacres of Jews as “resistance”.

Friedman had even participated in the “Fast for Gaza” in support of the Hamas-ruled territory.

Five of the vice chairs of Rabbis for Obama and nearly half its
members had signed an earlier “Alliance” letter urging President Bush to
conduct "constructive engagement" with Hamas.

Many of the
Hamas Rabbis have returned to sign the letter in support of Iran’s
nuclear enrichment deal. They include Sharon Kleinbaum, another radical
member of J Street’s Rabbinic Cabinet Executive Council, who faced a
member revolt over her extreme anti-Israel views which included reading
the names of dead Hamas terrorists alongside Israeli casualties from the
pulpit.

Sharon Kleinbaum supported providing space to Queers
Against Israeli Apartheid and had also participated in the Fast for
Gaza.

Burton Visotzky had signed on to Rabbis for Obama,
Rabbis for Hamas and Rabbis for Iran. He was the National Co-Chair of
Rabbis for Obama 2012, another member of J Street’s Rabbinic Cabinet
Executive Council and had worked together with ISNA.

Visotzky (along with Dorff) even joined ISNA, an organization linked to funding of Hamas,
in a letter in support of Obama’s pressure on Israel. Two other
signatories of that letter, Paul Menitoff and Peter Knobel, had also
signed on to Rabbis for Hamas and the current Rabbis for Iran letter.

Paul Menitoff had already become infamous for his 2002 letter
to Bush calling for US troops to occupy Israel and demanding full scale
sanctions on the Jewish State in support of a Palestinian Muslim terror
state. While leftist clergy might be against the occupation of Iraq and
the Israeli blockade of Hamas, some were disturbingly enthusiastic
about an American occupation of Israel.

Menitoff is a co-chair of J Street’s Rabbinic Cabinet and was one of the 2012 Rabbis for Obama.

Jill Jacobs, the executive director of T'ruah (formerly Rabbis for
Human Rights), yet another establishment left-wing anti-Israel group,
has signed on to the Rabbis for Iran letter as well as the Rabbis for
Hamas letter. She is another co-chair of the Rabbinic Cabinet of J
Street.

Jacobs insisted that Jews needed to “repent” before
Muslim terrorists and whined last year that her fellow liberal clergy
were afraid to attack Israel “because they get slammed by their
right-wing congregants”. She has accused Jews living in Jerusalem of
being “settlers” and advocates an apartheid that excludes Jews from
living in those parts of the Holy City which were under Muslim
occupation.

Jill Jacobs does not advocate against Muslims living in Jerusalem. Only against Jews living in Jerusalem.

Rachel Mikva, the daughter of Obama crony Abner Mikva, as one of the
Rabbis for Obama claimed that, “Anyone who looks at Sen. Obama's record
will see that he has been and remains a staunch supporter of Israel.”
She insisted that, “God has graced us with an exceptional candidate for
the presidency”.

It’s unknown who Rachel Mikva’s god is, but
it’s a safe bet that he isn’t the G-d of Israel. It’s likely that the
name of Mikva’s god is Arnold Jacob Wolf, a close friend of Obama and militant enemy of Israel.

Wolf had signed the Rabbis for Hamas letter as part of a long career
of advocacy against Israel. He was the co-founder of Breira, one of the
establishment anti-Israel groups, and worked with Pol Pot genocide
denier Noam Chomsky on another anti-Israel group.
He was a Vice Chair of Rabbis for Obama and a board member of the
"Alliance". Wolf however died before he could sign the Rabbis for Iran
letter.

Rachel Mikva is part of J Street’s rabbinic cabinet;
she has signed letters against Israel in the past, and is front and
center on the Rabbis for Iran letter.

The most infamous figure on the list though may be Chaim Seidler-Feller, who has signed the current Rabbis for Iran letter and was also a signatory of the Rabbis for Hamas letter. Seidler-Feller had also joined Norman Lear and the director of an episode of Masters of Sex in an earlier pro-deal letter.

Chaim Seidler-Feller was a founding member of the anti-Israel group
Americans for Peace Now, even if he wasn't a particularly peaceful
person, engaging in angry confrontations with pro-Israel activists.

In one of the worst incidents, he violently attacked two Jewish women
at UCLA, kicking and scratching one of them while trying to throw her down the stairs.

"I was saved from possible concussion by several bystanders who pulled
him off me in time... He assaulted me three times in the course of
several minutes, and each time I had to be rescued by helpful
bystanders," the victim described.

“I saw my rabbi take swings to Neuwirth’s face and kicks to her legs," one eyewitness wrote.
"I am deeply sorry that I hit, kicked and scratched you," Chaim
Seidler-Feller would later write. "By taking these unprovoked actions, I
have contradicted the pluralism, peace and tolerance about which I so
often preach."

But that pluralism, peace and tolerance only goes one way with the left. Toward the terrorists.

And that is what this is really about. When you read about a few
hundred “Rabbis” signing a letter against Israel and for Iran, Hamas or
Hezbollah, look closer and you will see the same few names. These names
are the banners of a well-funded network of anti-Israel organizations.
They are united by a deep hatred for Israel and the Jewish people, by
radical leftist politics and by support for terrorists.

They
will put on a modicum of moderation so that their congregants don’t
realize how extreme and hateful their “spiritual leaders” are, but
sometimes they show what is underneath the smiles.

Chaim
Seidler-Feller showed his true face when he attacked two Jewish women
for supporting Israel. Many of the other names on this list show their
true faces when they sign letters attacking Israel.

Now these
relentless opponents of the Jewish State want us to believe that the
Iran deal will be good for Israel. Just as they claimed that Obama
would be good for Israel.

These left-wing activists call
themselves Rabbis, just as Obama calls himself a Christian. But they all
share a common faith, not in any divinity, but in revolution and the
tyranny of the left. They support Iran and Hamas because they share
their hatred for America and Israel.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the
David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical
Islam.Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259835/rabbis-hamas-obama-and-iran-daniel-greenfield Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

How is there still anyone who does not
understand why Israel opposes the nuclear deal with Iran? Rather than
being a deal of the brave, it is a deal of the naive. What other secrets
will we soon find out about the deal?

A satellite image of the
Parchin military site in Iran

|

Photo credit: AP

What a bizarre world! The Associated Press
revealed on Tuesday that, under the terms of a secret deal with the
International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran will be allowed to use its own
inspectors to investigate the Parchin military site, where it is
suspected that Iran carried out nuclear weapons development activities.
You read that correctly. The cat will get to guard the cream. No need to
worry, friends.

The date on Tuesday was Aug. 19, not April 1,
so this was not a prank. By the same "healthy" logic used by world
powers, Israel should let Hamas run the Iron Dome system during the next
war in the Gaza Strip, and the Interior Ministry should give up its
authority to stem illegal migration. We must adapt to the new world we
live in. And what a strange world it is!

Over the past decade, Iran never stopped lying
and cheating as it built three secret nuclear facilities, and the world
nobly turned the other cheek. How is there still anyone who does not
understand why Israel opposes the nuclear deal with Iran? Are there any
Israelis who think it is wrong to oppose the deal? A deal of the brave
it is not. Rather, it is a deal of the naive.

Since the deal was signed in Vienna on July
14, there have been non-stop surprises, including revelations about
secret components of the deal. And recently, the IAEA chief said he was
obligated to keep the details of his organization's side agreements with
Iran confidential. If the AP report proves to be true, he should hang
his head in shame.

Over the past month, during which opposition
to the deal has only grown, we have had trouble digesting numerous
problematic aspects of the deal. For example, we discovered Article 10
on Page 142, which stipulates that world powers and Iran will foster
"cooperation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran's ability
to protect against, and respond to, nuclear security threats, including
sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear
security and physical protection systems." Absolutely unbelievable!

Later, we heard U.S. Secretary of State John
Kerry (future Nobel Prize winner?) admit to Congress that he had not
seen the IAEA's side agreements with Iran, but, thank God, he had been
briefed on them.

And now, we find out Iran will inspect itself
at Parchin. If this absurdity is true, it would be best for Kerry to
declare, "I didn't know."

Under the deal, Iran will provide its own soil
samples from Parchin, and it will have an advance notice of 24 days
before inspections of suspicious sites can be conducted. American
comedian Jackie Mason joked that restaurants in New York face a tougher
inspections system.

By agreeing to this deal with Iran, Obama
produced a very funny episode of "It's a Wonderful Country" (an Israeli
comedy show), but in Persian rather than Hebrew.

It is now easy to understand why, within weeks
of the deal being signed, the Iranians were saying that no foreign
entities would enter their military sites. They knew what they were
talking about, as they were aware that world powers had agreed to forgo
inspections of Parchin.

So what's next? What other secrets will we find out
about the nuclear deal? Perhaps, when the deal expires, Iran will be
allowed to conduct nuclear weapons tests with world powers?

Outgoing Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno said Wednesday that Russia is the most dangerous to the United States.

President
Obama ridiculed Mitt Romney in the 2012 debates for saying that Russia
was our greatest geopolitical threat. Now, as Russia continues to gobble
up pieces of Ukraine under the cover of a phony cease-fire, President
Obama’s outgoing Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Roy Odierno, said exactly the
same thing on Wednesday:

Outgoing Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno said Wednesday that Russia is the most dangerous to the United States.

“I believe Russia is the most dangerous because of a couple things,” Odierno said in the press conference.Odierno said he considers Russia the most dangerous because of some of their intents and their capabilities in Ukraine.“First
they are more mature than some other of our potential adversaries and I
think they have some stated intents that concern me in terms of how the
Cold War ended,” Odierno said. “They have shown some significant
capability in Ukraine to do operations that are fairly significant.”

Odierno’s
assessment of Russian capabilities and intention’s dovetails perfectly
with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s expressed view that the demise
of the Soviet Union was one of the greatest disasters of modern times.
His actions in Ukraine in conjunction with massive Russian rearmament
show his desire to reassemble the old Soviet Union.

In
his annual address to parliament in 2005, old KGB boss emeritus Putin
made the grotesque claim that the "demise of the Soviet Union was the
greatest political catastrophe of the century," demonstrating a
nostalgia for what he considers the good old days.

Back
in 2012 when Romney put Russia at the top of the geopolitical threat
list, President Obama gave a mocking response more worthy of a former
community organizer rather than the leader of the free world. As Investor’s Business Daily noted:

"You
said Russia. Not al-Qaida. You said Russia," Obama rebuked him
regarding our biggest threats. "The 1980s are now calling to ask for
their foreign policy back because... the Cold War's been over for 20
years," said the president who promised the Russians more flexibility as
he disarmed the United States.

If
the Cold War was over, somebody forgot to tell Moscow, for their
belligerence towards Ukraine is straight out of the playbook of Nikita
Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev. They ruthlessly repressed with Soviet
armor the 1956 Hungary rebellion and the 1968 Prague Spring in
Czechoslovakia.

Putin’s
approach is perhaps more subtle, arming so-called “separatists” rather
than sending in Soviet armored columns, but it is a distinction without a
difference. Attacks by these separatists, with the full knowledge and
support of Moscow, have increase markedly in recent days, making a mockery of the February cease-fire:

Ukraine’s
military reported 127 attacks on Monday by the pro-Russian rebels,
including an assault by 400 separatists and tanks about 30 miles north
of Mariupol, a strategic government-held port in southeastern Ukraine….U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry “expressed grave concern” Thursday about
the escalation in rebel attacks in a phone call with Sergei Lavrov, his
Russian counterpart. Kerry urged Russia to end its support for the
separatists and stick to the Minsk ceasefire signed in mid-February….Luke
Coffey, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center
for Freedom who studies European security issues, said in an interview
that Russian President Vladimir Putin is pursuing a “very incremental,
deliberate, slow” strategy in Ukraine. By taking small pieces of
territory over a months-long conflict, he can blunt a concerted response
from an international community that has devoted attention to other
immediate issues, such as the Iran nuclear deal.

Grave
concerns and sternly worded letters carry no weight with Putin, whose
stated ambitions are clear. President Obama has done less than nothing,
sending only supplies worthy of a Boy Scout Jamboree rather than a
sovereign nation resisting Russian aggression. Ukrainian President Petro
Poroshenko warned Congress last September that Russian actions in the
Ukraine were the start of a new Cold War:

On
Thursday, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko gave a 40-minute speech
to a rare joint session of Congress alerting lawmakers to the plight of
his country under Russia's creeping "Anschluss."Poroshenko
once again pled for meaningful aid, including an affiliation with NATO,
and warned that a new Iron Curtain may soon descend as Vladimir Putin
tries to reassemble the Soviet Union whose demise he has publicly
mourned….In
March, Ukraine asked for arms and ammunition, intelligence support,
aviation fuel and night vision goggles. The Pentagon agreed only to
provide the Ukrainians with supplies of U.S. military rations known as
Meals Ready To Eat, or MREs.This
time Ukraine did not get much more than that — just some peripheral
gear such as night-vision goggles and helmets. But once again it
received no lethal aid that Poroshenko's country desperately needs, such
as requested anti-tank weaponry.

Just
as Obama failed to aid Iran’s “Green Revolution” in Iran in 2009 when
it might have brought the mullahs to their knees and nipped Iran’s
nuclear threat in the bud, he is allowing Putin and Russia to take the
first steps toward rebooting the old “evil empire” President Ronald
Reagan worked so hard to defeat, Like Hitler’s 1936 march into the
Rhineland it will lead to a bad end.

Daniel John Sobieskiis a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications. Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/while_obama_sleeps_russia_gobbles_up_ukraine.html Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Iran deal serves multiple purposes for the
administration, such as advancing its goals of extracting the US from
the Middle East and ending the era of American world leadership. It is
also intended to weaken Israel, which it sees as a colonial power
oppressing the real ‘owners’ of the Middle East.

As many of you know, I returned to live in Israel a year ago after 26
years in the place I consider my beloved hometown, Fresno California,
located in the large valley that runs down the center of the state. It
is more or less equidistant from Los Angeles and San Francisco;
politically it is on a different planet. Its establishment is solidly
socially and politically conservative, although Democrats have a slight
edge in voter registration. The main industries are agriculture and
related occupations, and there is a branch of the California State
University known for its business and ag schools. Fresno was the home of
noted writer William Saroyan and also a number of surprisingly good
poets.

Fresno has a tiny Jewish community, no more than 1000
families in a metropolitan area of about a half million people. On
several occasions I was told that I was the first Jew my interlocutor
had met. I never noticed anyone checking for horns, though.

There
is a Reform Temple with about 350 adult members, a much smaller
Conservative congregation and a Chabad house. There are several churches
on any non-residential block, including Catholic, several kinds of
Orthodox, and countless Protestant denominations.

The three
Congressmen representing the Fresno area are two Republicans (Jeff
Denham and Devin Nunes) and one Democrat, Jim Costa. The Republicans are
opposed to the nuclear deal with Iran, but Costa is still undecided. As
part of its campaign against the deal, AIPAC is holding ‘townhall’
meetings with its members and undecided congresspersons. Tonight there
will be such a meeting with Jim Costa in Fresno.

It will take place in an Evangelical church, the Cornerstone Church of Pastor Jim Franklin.

This
seemed strange to me. Why would AIPAC hold a meeting in a church, one
which happens to be located in downtown Fresno about as far from most of
the Jewish population as possible? Oh, it’s a great facility, modern
and attractive, and Franklin is one of the most solidly pro-Israel
people you will find anywhere. But aren’t most of AIPAC’s members
Jewish?

Temple Beth Israel, the Reform congregation, also a large
modern facility, located on the other side of town, would seem to be the
appropriate place. But the event is not being held there, and in fact
the Temple decided not to move its scheduled board meeting from this
evening, which will make it difficult for the board members to attend
the AIPAC event. When I inquired, I was told that the rabbi felt the
Iran issue would be “too divisive” for the Temple.

You can smell the fear. This is what American liberal Judaism has come to.

AIPAC
is a non-partisan organization whose objective is to lobby American
politicians in support of Israel. Until recently American Jews have also
supported Israel regardless of whether they were Democrats (most were)
or Republicans.

But as the Democratic Party moved leftward – a
move that sharply accelerated with the election of Barack Obama – Jews
began to find themselves conflicted. The anti-Israel narrative formerly
associated only with the extreme Left became more and more part of the
conventional wisdom in liberal circles. An emblematic event took place
at the Democratic National Convention in 2012 when language referring to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was removed and reinserted to a chorus of boos.

Now
that Barack Obama has placed his prestige and authority on the line for
the Iran deal which Israel (and AIPAC) strongly oppose, the conflict
became even sharper. The Iran deal serves multiple purposes for the
administration, such as advancing its goals of extracting the US from
the Middle East and ending the era of American world leadership. It is
also intended to weaken Israel, which it sees as a colonial power
oppressing the real ‘owners’ of the Middle East. This project requires
separating Israel from its traditional support in the US.

Obama
and his people chose to play the Jew card. By presenting opponents of
the deal as traitors and warmongers – and Jewish ones particularly as
disloyal – the administration is trying to make pro-Israel expression
uncomfortable, especially for Jews. When Obama talked about
“tens millions of dollars in advertising” and “the same people who
argued for the war in Iraq” they heard “Jewish money” and “Jewish
neo-cons.” His thousands of surrogates on social media were far less
subtle.

This strategy is having its desired effect. Liberal
American Jews are being forced to choose between support for the Jewish
homeland and what they perceive as loyalty to their country. The Reform
movement as a whole preferred not to take a stand
on the deal, and apparently the Fresno contingent sees it as too
damaging to their fragile unity even to discuss. But this is exactly
what they should discuss.

It’s interesting that a movement which
values ‘involvement’ and ‘social action’ so strongly and which purports
to favor open discussion and democracy above all, has fled from
engagement with this particular issue, because it’s “too divisive.” This
isn’t just hypocrisy. A big part of the problem is that American Jews
have been manipulated by demagogic techniques that appealed to their
deep-seated fear of the traditional antisemitic accusations of
disloyalty.

AIPAC’s event will be held in an Evangelical church in
Fresno because Evangelical Christians, in Fresno and in general, still
have more courage to stand up for the survival of a Jewish state than
Reform Jews.Vic RosenthalSource: http://abuyehuda.com/2015/08/liberal-jews-afraid-to-oppose-iran-deal/ Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

We cannot cross the threshold with respect to Muslim immigration that will push us into a realm that looks like Europe.

With
immigration front and center in the political debate, I’ve yet to hear
any candidate address the significant threat to our national security
otherwise known as importing hordes of Muslims. Nor is anyone talking
about the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into every arm of our
government.

Why
the silence on these matters of utmost importance? Surely with a small
group of candidates fearlessly bucking political correctness and the
establishment, we should have at least a couple of them putting these
issues front and center.

But no one is.

To the first point: Muslim immigration.

As I’ve written about at American Thinker (see here and here), it doesn’t take a lot of Muslims to wreak havoc on a nation.

Muslim
immigrants pose a unique risk because we cannot know who among this
demographic group is a present or future jihadist, who may want to
impose sharia law (stats show most support it), and/or the role taqiyya
(sanctioned deception) may play in the vetting process. When in doubt,
we must be ever aware that Islam is not compatible with Western values.

One
should also be cognizant of the powerful role Hijra plays when it comes
to Muslim immigration. Hijra is the Islamic doctrine of immigration.
It is the counterpart of violent jihad, whereby a society is overwhelmed
with Muslims such that they become the dominant force.

Despite
all of this, the United States is importing large numbers of Muslims,
primarily from Islamic countries. Here are some stats:

The estimated number of Muslims currently living in the United States ranges from 3 million to 7 million.

In general, Muslim families have high birthrates. As a result, the population increases rapidly.

Since 9/11 there has been a dramatic increase in immigrants from Islamic countries, with a 66% increase in the past decade.

In the last three years, 300,000 Muslims have immigrated to the United States.

The
State Department projects a surge in admissions from Syria, beginning
this year, to the tune of at least 75,000 over the next five years.

The Refugee Resettlement Program is paving the way for a flood of Muslim immigrants to come to America.

Factoring
high immigration levels with high birthrates, Pew Research projects
that by 2030, the Muslim population the United States will more than
double.

As Peter Hammond wrote in his book, Slavery, Terrorism, and Islam,
there is a predictable relationship between the percentage of Muslims
in a population and levels of violence directly related to the
imposition of sharia law. All one need do is look at Europe or
Muslim-majority countries to see Hammond’s predictions play out in real
life.

We cannot cross the threshold with respect to Muslim immigration that will push us into a realm that looks like Europe.

To be blunt: Muslim immigration to the United States must end.

If
that sounds harsh, too bad. If Muslims who have no intention of doing
us harm (whether through violent jihad or creeping sharia) feel singled
out, those are the breaks. Our obligation, first, foremost, and
forever, is to protect ourselves. If some people’s feelings are hurt
along the way, so be it. When weighing our national security against
some folks feeling offended, it’s a no-brainer that our safety and
security come first. Without those, nothing else matters.

In addition to Muslim immigration, we have the enormous threat of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into our government.

Again, no presidential candidate is talking about this.

I hear a lot of talk about our government being too big.

Yes,
it is too big. But a smaller government will still be dangerous if it
continues to harbor the enemy – in this case, members of the Muslim
Brotherhood.

We
need to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. And
that includes all of its front groups operating here in the United
States. (Operating in plain sight, I might add.)

At
the very least, these groups must be shut down, and members of the
Muslim Brotherhood must be removed from government positions.

In a joint operation involving the IAF, the artillery corps and the
armored corps, IDF hits 14 targets belonging to the Assad regime.

The IDF announced on Thursday night that it had attacked 14 targets belonging to the Syrian regime in the Golan Heights.

According to the statement, the attacks were a joint operation of the
Israel Air Force, the artillery corps and the armored corps. The
attacks were retaliation for the firing of four rockets towards Israeli territory from Syria on Thursday afternoon.

“This shooting was carried out by the Islamic Jihad, with Iranian
funding, and is a flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the State of
Israel. The IDF holds the Syrian regime responsible for what is
happening in its territory and will not tolerate any attempt to harm
Israel's sovereignty and the security of its citizens," said the IDF
Spokesperson’s Unit.

Four rockets hit Israel Thursday afternoon in the Upper Galilee region in the north. All four exploded in open areas.

A senior IDF officer said on Thursday evening that Iran was behind the rocket attack,
noting that the directive to fire the rockets was personally given out
by the head of the Palestinian department in Iran’s Al-Quds force.

The senior officer’s comments regarding Iran’s involvement in the
attack are in line with a report from April, when Iranian officials
reportedly told the Syrian regime to strike Israel and open a war front on the Golan.

Israeli security sources said the rockets were fired by the Islamic
Jihad terrorist organization, which is funded and directed by Iran, but
the group denied the accusations.Ben ArielSource: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/199726#.VdZ3Spdup-8 Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.